Ulster Rugby 2017-18

by marty2086 Wed 05 Jul 2017, 10:42 am

First topic message reminder :

Director of Rugby Les Kiss
Head Coach Jono Gibbes
Assistant Coach Dwayne Peel
Scrum Coach Aaron Dundon
Skills Coach Niall Malone

Players In
John Cooney from Connacht
Schalk van der Merwe from Southern Kings
Jean Deysel from Sharks
David Busby promoted from Academy
Aaron Cairns promoted from Academy
Ross Kane promoted from Academy
Rob Lyttle promoted from Academy
Tommy O'Hagan promoted from Academy
Jack Owens promoted from Academy

Players Out
Franco van der Merwe to Cardiff Blues
Roger Wilson retired
Conor Joyce to Jersey Reds
Mark Best to Jersey Reds
Jonny Murphy to Rotherham Titans
Ruan Pienaar to Montpellier
John Donnan released
Lorcan Dow released
Ricky Lutton released
Stephen Mulholland released

Ulster Rugby 2017/18 Senior Playing Squad

Rodney Ah You (18 ULS, 3 IRE)
John Andrew (27 ULS)
Rory Best (198 ULS, 104 IRE)
Callum Black (128 ULS)
Tommy Bowe (150 ULS, 69 IRE)
Peter Browne (31 ULS)
David Busby (2 ULS)
Aaron Cairns (1 ULS)
Darren Cave (193 ULS, 11 IRE)
Marcell Coetzee (4 ULS, 28 SA)
John Cooney (0 ULS, 1 IRE)
Jean Deysel (0 ULS, 4 SA)
Robbie Diack (193 ULS, 2 IRE)
Craig Gilroy (149 ULS, 10 IRE)
Iain Henderson (74 ULS, 32 IRE)
Chris Henry (165 ULS, 24 IRE)
Wiehahn Herbst (54 ULS)
Rob Herring (120 ULS, 1 IRE)
Brett Herron (7 ULS)
Paddy Jackson (123 ULS, 25 IRE)
Ross Kane (11 ULS)
Louis Ludik (54 ULS)
Robert Lyttle (8 ULS)
Luke Marshall (104 ULS, 11 IRE)
Paul Marshall (195 ULS, 3 IRE)
Kyle McCall (36 ULS)
Stuart McCloskey (58 ULS, 1 IRE)
Johnny McPhillips
Peter Nelson (37 ULS)
Alan O'Connor (39 ULS)
Tommy O'Hagan
Stuart Olding (62 ULS, 4 IRE)
Jack Owens (1 ULS)
Callum Patterson
Jared Payne (78 ULS, 20 IRE)
Charles Piutau (23 ULS, 16 NZ)
Matthew Rea
Sean Reidy (58 ULS, 2 IRE)
Clive Ross (52 ULS)
David Shanahan (13 ULS)
Jonny Simpson (4 ULS)
Jacob Stockdale (24 ULS, 2 IRE)
Kieran Treadwell (21 ULS, 2 IRE)
Andrew Trimble (217 ULS, 70 IRE)
Schalk van der Merwe
Andrew Warwick (74 ULS)

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 27 Jul 2017, 9:39 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
BigGee wrote:Your old boy Rory Scholes just left Edinburgh today with a year of his contract still to run.

It never really worked out for him over there, seemingly he did not impress the previous coaches, who hardly played him, nor Cockers, who appears to have binned him.

He came over highly rated and with a general gnashing of teeth from the Ulster posters. Paraphrasing the famous George Best quote, 'where did it all go wrong?'

Is he likely to come back to Ulster?

Is there a link to this? Not good at all.

I was reading about that at the end of last season. He's looking at a career in banking I seem to remember.

Oh yeah.

by Pete330v2 Thu 27 Jul 2017, 9:40 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
clivemcl wrote:I'm just saying you could come across badly for presuming innocence

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Clive, where our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.

Exactly, lets presume their innocence until there is any reason not to.
It seems strange that they were initially questioned and released without charge. Then, a year later suddenly there are charges. If there had been DNA evidence they'd have been arrested immediately. This leaves hearsay evidence which is what this must be. This would leave any case very hard to prove and comes down to one party's word against the other. The only unknown is the perversion of justice. Was there someone covering for the 2 lads who's suddenly come clean?

by **BigGee** Thu 27 Jul 2017, 10:22 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
BigGee wrote:Your old boy Rory Scholes just left Edinburgh today with a year of his contract still to run.

It never really worked out for him over there, seemingly he did not impress the previous coaches, who hardly played him, nor Cockers, who appears to have binned him.

He came over highly rated and with a general gnashing of teeth from the Ulster posters. Paraphrasing the famous George Best quote, 'where did it all go wrong?'

Is he likely to come back to Ulster?

Is there a link to this? Not good at all.

I was reading about that at the end of last season. He's looking at a career in banking I seem to remember.

That was Allen, the other Ulster player who came over to Edinburgh and probably, in all fairness, made a much better impression. He just seemed to decide that he did not want to be a professional sportsman any more. Something that all of us armchair rugby fans probably found hard to get our heads around!

Here is the link to the Edinburgh website that mentions Scholes going. There is not any fanfare about this, just an after note.

http://www.edinburghrugby.org/news/17/07/27/edinburgh-squad-update

by Rory_Gallagher Thu 27 Jul 2017, 11:26 pm

Thanks BigGee. Good to see our boys leaving an impression. Rolling Eyes

by clivemcl Thu 27 Jul 2017, 11:46 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
clivemcl wrote:I'm just saying you could come across badly for presuming innocence

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Clive, where our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.

With respect Rory, It's not quite so simple in a case like this. Presumption of innocence equates to presumption that a girl lied and needs to come up with evidence of something being 'forced' or 'non-concenting' or else it didn't happen.

I'm not a fan of people presuming that.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 28 Jul 2017, 12:38 am

clivemcl wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
clivemcl wrote:I'm just saying you could come across badly for presuming innocence

Welcome to the United Kingdom, Clive, where our legal system is based on the presumption of innocence.

With respect Rory, It's not quite so simple in a case like this. Presumption of innocence equates to presumption that a girl lied and needs to come up with evidence of something being 'forced' or 'non-concenting' or else it didn't happen.

I'm not a fan of people presuming that.

I don't think you understand how criminal law works. There haven't even been any facts released yet. This is just plain wrong and I'm very glad that we live in a society where this is the case. Go and learn about it.

by clivemcl Fri 28 Jul 2017, 1:21 am

Rory, I've not talking about the criminal justice system, I'm talking about a girl who says 'I was raped' and the response 'No they didn't until you can provide evidence'.

To presume innocence is to presume a liar of the girl.

I don't agree with men getting their reputations ruined, but neither do I agree with the victims of a horrible horrible crime being told 'the guy didn't do it unless you have evidence'. It amounts to saying 'next time your getting raped, take a picture, or get some bruises or grab a handful of his pubic hair... otherwise... deal with it and move on'.

My problem is simply with the presumed innocent rhetoric. Whats so wrong with 'we don't know'. Why side with anyone in a case like this?

by Pete330v2 Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:39 am

Presuming innocence until proven otherwise is the basis of our legal system Clive and to think otherwise would make a mockery of the judicial system. This girl is the one pressing the charges and regardless of the severity of the crime it's up to her prosecution team to prove their case. Her word is not good enough.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:40 am

Rhetoric. Read about the UK criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence and why it is necessary. You clearly don't understand it.

by aucklandlaurie Fri 28 Jul 2017, 9:09 am

I hope these guys get a fair trial then they will have the opportunity to prove their innocence thats if they are not discharged prior to trial.

by marty2086 Fri 28 Jul 2017, 9:22 am

clivemcl wrote:Rory, I've not talking about the criminal justice system, I'm talking about a girl who says 'I was raped' and the response 'No they didn't until you can provide evidence'.

To presume innocence is to presume a liar of the girl.

Not the case at all, you presume innocence until a case is presented then a case has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

by the-goon Fri 28 Jul 2017, 9:51 am

CliveMcl r@ped me. Prove that I'm lying and you are not a r@pist.

by **BigGee** Fri 28 Jul 2017, 10:18 am

I would imagine that to say that someone is lying or not lying in a case such as this is likely to be massively over simplifying it.

If other such cases are anything to go on, then it is likely that sexual activity will have taken place and no-one is going to be disputing that.

The case is more likely to hinge around the issue of consent and peoples interpretation of consent. Bearing in mind that alcohol is more than likely to have been involved, this makes it even more difficult for a jury to make an easy decision as to which version of events they choose to believe.

It is perfectly possible here that no-one honestly considers themselves to be lying and are completely convinced by their recollection of the events. The jury will just have to decide who they feel is the most believable.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 28 Jul 2017, 10:51 am

Pete330v2 wrote:Presuming innocence until proven otherwise is the basis of our legal system Clive and to think otherwise would make a mockery of the judicial system. This girl is the one pressing the charges and regardless of the severity of the crime it's up to her prosecution team to prove their case. Her word is not good enough.

The one that gets me is that the person making accusations (whether they lead to convictions or not) has a right to annonymity (and rightly so), however the accused get named almost straight away. Surely they should be given the same right to annonymity (unless their guilt has been proven).

by LordDowlais Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:15 am

What happens if the people accused are proved innocent, and the person making the accusations is found to be lying ?

Would the person lying be in line for the same punishment as the accused ?

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:17 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:Presuming innocence until proven otherwise is the basis of our legal system Clive and to think otherwise would make a mockery of the judicial system. This girl is the one pressing the charges and regardless of the severity of the crime it's up to her prosecution team to prove their case. Her word is not good enough.

The one that gets me is that the person making accusations (whether they lead to convictions or not) has a right to annonymity (and rightly so), however the accused get named almost straight away. Surely they should be given the same right to annonymity (unless their guilt has been proven).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Some people have the knives out (for either party) before any evidence has even been released. Enforcing this in practice would be tough, however. If it involves high profile individuals it will become fairly common knowledge soon enough in this day and age.

by Pete C (Kiwireddevil) Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:18 am

LordDowlais wrote:What happens if the people accused are proved innocent, and the person making the accusations is found to be lying ?

Would the person lying be in line for the same punishment as the accused ?

Perjury is a crime LD. With its own punishment.

by LordDowlais Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:21 am

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:What happens if the people accused are proved innocent, and the person making the accusations is found to be lying ?

Would the person lying be in line for the same punishment as the accused ?

Perjury is a crime LD. With its own punishment.

Yep. I know, I was just thinking out loud. It seems though that whilst one crime can cause a bigger punishment to the accused, the crime of the accuser is a lot less significant. I would like to see perjury carrying a heavier sentence.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:24 am

LordDowlais wrote:What happens if the people accused are proved innocent, and the person making the accusations is found to be lying ?

Would the person lying be in line for the same punishment as the accused ?

If it is found to be a deliberate lie then I believe the accuser should face some sort of repercussion, yes. Again, this would be very difficult to do in practice. But if it can be proven then it would be beneficial to do so, especially considering the fact that it actually harms the case for genuine r*** victims. I know myself and many others have become rather sick and tired of certain feminist propaganda in terms of what constitutes as "sexual assault" or "r@pe" which can lead many to become cynical regarding the entire subject. Not good.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:26 am

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
ScarletSpiderman wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:Presuming innocence until proven otherwise is the basis of our legal system Clive and to think otherwise would make a mockery of the judicial system. This girl is the one pressing the charges and regardless of the severity of the crime it's up to her prosecution team to prove their case. Her word is not good enough.

The one that gets me is that the person making accusations (whether they lead to convictions or not) has a right to annonymity (and rightly so), however the accused get named almost straight away. Surely they should be given the same right to annonymity (unless their guilt has been proven).

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Some people have the knives out (for either party) before any evidence has even been released. Enforcing this in practice would be tough, however. If it involves high profile individuals it will become fairly common knowledge soon enough in this day and age.

I guess that is true, and it is proably true enough in everyday cases too. I was thinking more along the lines of, for instance, the Chet Evans case. After he was aquitted, people indentified the woman and issued 'warnings' to other men to 'steer clear or it could be them next time' (or something similar), and they were cautioned for it (if memory serves me right). If there are ways of protecting the alleged-victim (and i can understand why, if the jury had actually made the wrong decision, which happens, etc) then surely the same should protection should be given to the alledged-perp.

by BamBam Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:37 am

This probably isn't the best place to discuss it, but I hope Ulster/Ireland/rugby fans don't descend to the levels that Sheffield Utd fans did in the Ched Evans case, regardless of innocence/guilt

by **BigGee** Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:56 am

ScarletSpiderman wrote: After he was aquitted, people indentified the woman and issued 'warnings' to other men to 'steer clear or it could be them next time' (or something similar), and they were cautioned for it (if memory serves me right).

The girl in the Ched Evans case had here anonymity broken on line by several supporters of Evans during and after the original trial and that was what they were cautioned for. It was a lot more than 'just watch out for her' as well, her safety was at threat and she has had to move home several times.

That whole case was an incredibly messy business and showed how valuable having very good (and expensive) legal backing can be in such hard to prove cases. If it was not for the continued backing of the very wealthy fiancé and her family, he may never have gotten that result.

Ched Evans may have been proven innocent of the crime, but his actions still remain pretty reprehensible in just about any moral code. He has now gotten the chance to put his life back together whilst the girl has largely had hers ruined having had her character completely trashed in the court. This was the traditional way of defending a man in a r*** case but is not meant to happen now, but it did.

You can understand why women in a similar situation might be reluctant to report such incidents as everything still seems to be stacked against them. The conviction rate for sexual offences is still shockingly low.

I hope for these boys sake that their case is nothing like the Ched Evans one.

by marty2086 Fri 28 Jul 2017, 12:03 pm

On a more positive note the Academy squad has been confirmed for the season

Abbey Insurance Ulster Rugby Academy 2017/18 Squad:

NAME POSITION SCHOOL / CLUB DOB YEAR Height (cm) Weight (kg)
Rory Butler Centre Ballynahinch RFC 11/03/1997 2 197 101
Alexander Clarke Hooker Queen's University RFC 02/07/1998 1 188 103
Peter Cooper Prop Malone RFC 22/01/1997 3 182 115
Angus Curtis Outhalf Queen's University RFC 26/03/1998 2 183 88
Matthew Dalton Second row / Flanker Malone RFC 16/11/1998 1 196 105
Joe Dunleavy Flanker Malone RFC 22/12/1998 1 190 101
Aaron Hall Back row Ballynahinch RFC 26/06/1998 2 192 98
James Hume Centre Banbridge RFC 07/09/1998 1 184 98
Greg Jones Number 8 Banbridge RFC 13/01/1996 1 196 103
Michael Lowry Outhalf Banbridge RFC 20/08/1998 1 170.4 79
Adam McBurney Hooker Ballymena RFC 05/09/1996 2 181 100
Zack McCall Hooker Ballynahinch RFC 10/02/1995 2 180 100
John McCusker Second row Rainey OB RFC 06/07/1998 1 198 110
Eric O'Sullivan Prop Banbridge RFC 30/11/1995 1 188 118.5
Tom O'Toole Prop Banbridge RFC 23/09/1998 1 187 113
Marcus Rea Back row Ballymena RFC 08/09/1997 2 189 103
Jack Regan Second row Ballynahinch RFC 09/05/1997 1 196.6 108
Jonathon Stewart Scrumhalf Queen's University RFC 20/02/1998 2 178 78
Nick Timoney Back row Banbridge RFC 01/08/1995 3 192 110

by toml Fri 28 Jul 2017, 12:25 pm

I have to say it is a bit ridiculous that the accused is named straight away before things are proven beyond reasonable doubt. Anyone who has been accused of something (criminal or non criminal) that they didn't do, will know how badly their name can be tarnished, be it by mistake or maliciously.

Unfortunately so many r*** cases involve alcohol relating to consent which makes the waters so muddy.

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 2:19 pm

I'm just going to concentrate on the rugby and where it leaves us

http://www.the42.ie/jack-regan-greg-jones-leinster-ulster-3519034-Jul2017/

Ireland U20 forwards Jones and Regan make switch from Leinster to join Ulster academy

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 2:27 pm

I wonder why only 2 of the academy are placed with Ballymena and so many are placed with division 2 clubs instead?

by marty2086 Fri 28 Jul 2017, 2:44 pm

Is it up to Ulster who the players are aligned with? Or is it the players? Or somewhere in between?

Also I see the name Alexander Clarke named on there at hooker, if Im not mistaken that's Allens boy and a decent prospect too?

by carpet baboon Fri 28 Jul 2017, 3:34 pm

Kingshu wrote:I'm just going to concentrate on the rugby and where it leaves us

http://www.the42.ie/jack-regan-greg-jones-leinster-ulster-3519034-Jul2017/

Ireland U20 forwards Jones and Regan make switch from Leinster to join Ulster academy

Well they sound like decent lads. Let's hope they come good.
Anyone know why they chose to me be north? Will Leinster miss them?

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 5:07 pm

It appears that Leinster choose Dowling and Doris instead. Leinster can't take in all the talented players they are producing.
Its good to see these players choose Ulster rather than going to France/England.

I'd say its a mx of player feeling and Ulster/Club that decides which club they are placed at, e.g. player whats to play for local club, thats where he will go, clubs may request players in certain positions, and if player doesn't mind which club, they will place him at that one. I suppose Ulster cannot place them all at clubs in the highest division as they have to support all the clubs.

Banbridge RFC prob makes sense for these guys as its Division 1B and closest to Dublin.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 28 Jul 2017, 6:53 pm

With the loss of these lads and Ruan, have Ulster got any NIQ space to make a move for Halfpenny (he must be getting desperate, aka cheap now) as a reliable boot, let's I get them play a youngster at fly half without the pressure of goal kicking on their shoulders.

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 7:24 pm

ScarletSpiderman wrote:With the loss of these lads and Ruan, have Ulster got any NIQ space to make a move for Halfpenny (he must be getting desperate, aka cheap now) as a reliable boot, let's I get them play a youngster at fly half without the pressure of goal kicking on their shoulders.

No NIQ space unless IRFU make an exception, think that if we are granted it would be best to go for a NIQ flyhalf.

Most likely the IRFU will allow a NIQ project before the rules change (they will want cover in case Jackson doesn't return to the Ireland set up also). However is there much out there at this stage?

On the other hand IRFU could say that we have to use the acamady like they did to Connacht when they requested injury cover last year.

by ScarletSpiderman Fri 28 Jul 2017, 7:36 pm

If there is a chance for a project player, I guess it'll need to be a pj t from the Currie Cup, Mitre-Cup (or what ever it's called), turning up beck end of October.

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:06 pm

Possibly I think Peter Grant of Western Force or Jackson Garden-Bachop of Rebels depending on which is closed down by ARU

Both are NAQ players so unlikely to be picked up by other Aus teams.

Jackson Garden-Bachop at 22 could be signed as a project (IRFU may make a special case for Ulster to have a project FH)
Peter Grant at 32 would be cover for a year, maybe 2 year contract.

However I am just speculating on who may become available, never seen them to tell if they are any good, but Peter Grant has 5 SA caps, and has played regularly in the super tournament.
If its Rebels that go, Jackson Garden-Bachop at 22 may be a decent Project, having played in Super rugby, New Zealand U20 and for Wellington. Hopefully is a higher standard than someone at currently playing at Currie Cup, Mitre-Cup level.

I think whichever team is closed down, the player would be pretty happy to pick up a new contact, so wouldn't be an expensive NIQ signing.

by toml Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:13 pm

Hopefully Ulster start to fast track Lowry. He looks very assured and creative when I have seen him, an old head on young shoulders. He is very short though

by clivemcl Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:15 pm

Busy day, but just to clarify im not a fan of the 'innocent till proven guilty line'. I think it's a sentiment that many think is right and proper but I just don't see the need to give them the 'innocent' title when we just don't yet know. It's no t like I'm saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. I'm just saying my point of view whether you agree or disagree is 'maybe, let's see if there's evidence'.

by Rory_Gallagher Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:33 pm

clivemcl wrote:Busy day, but just to clarify im not a fan of the 'innocent till proven guilty line'. I think it's a sentiment that many think is right and proper but I just don't see the need to give them the 'innocent' title when we just don't yet know. It's no t like I'm saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. I'm just saying my point of view whether you agree or disagree is 'maybe, let's see if there's evidence'.

It's not a line, it isn't a sentiment, it's the law of the land (thankfully). I still don't think you understand and should go and read/learn about it.

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:35 pm

clivemcl wrote:Busy day, but just to clarify im not a fan of the 'innocent till proven guilty line'. I think it's a sentiment that many think is right and proper but I just don't see the need to give them the 'innocent' title when we just don't yet know. It's no t like I'm saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. I'm just saying my point of view whether you agree or disagree is 'maybe, let's see if there's evidence'.

Fair enough Clive, but presumption of innocence is a legal right of the accused in a criminal trial, and it is an international human right under the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 11.

You may not be a fan with people having Human rights, thats up to you.

by Kingshu Fri 28 Jul 2017, 8:37 pm

Anyway back to rugby, has anyone seen Peter Grant or Jackson Garden-Bachop, or think they are our most likely options?

by clivemcl Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:45 pm

Rory_Gallagher wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Busy day, but just to clarify I'm not a fan of the 'innocent till proven guilty line'. I think it's a sentiment that many think is right and proper but I just don't see the need to give them the 'innocent' title when we just don't yet know. It's no t like I'm saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. I'm just saying my point of view whether you agree or disagree is 'maybe, let's see if there's evidence'.

It's not a line, it isn't a sentiment, it's the law of the land (thankfully). I still don't think you understand and should go and read/learn about it.

What is there to read/learn Rory. I can disagree with it from the get go. Its a statement. I can buy into it or not.
Can you tell me why the terminology for verdicts is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' rather than 'guilty' or 'innocent'? It's because everyone knows a lack of evidence does not equal innocence. It could mean failure to convict.
To be guilty or innocent is a binary factual state. One or the other. That's my point, neither can be 'presumed'. It either is or it is not. Evidence is needed before we know.
You can't take a statement and throw it at people and expect it to simply be swallowed.
OJ Simpson was found 'not guilty' - so you think everybody suddenly said 'oh, OK then, I guess he's innocent after all!'. A lot would say at worst he's a guilty man who got lucky in terms of evidence delivery etc, and at best they would say 'I'm still not convinced, I just can't prove it'.

The statement exists as a counter to imprisonment without trial. I get why it exists. The burden is on the victim to prove the allegations. I get that. But the statement declares as fact something we don't know.

Innocent = Proof he did not
Not Guilty = We can't prove he did
Allegation = We don't know - let's try to find out

Rightly or wrongly, the gap between an allegation and a trial does not equate to innocence in the minds of observers. You can say 'innocent till proven guilty line' till you are blue in the face, it doesn't mean somebody IS.
Take an allegation of bad person/underage abuse. In the lead up to a trial do you say that person is innocent and allow him to continue spending time with children?

Point is, I get what the law of the land is trying to say, I just disagree with it's use of the word 'innocent' - that is something that cannot be known unless there is evidence. However, where the law is correct is that innocence does not have to be proven.

by clivemcl Fri 28 Jul 2017, 11:46 pm

P.S. just trying to catch up - are the super rugby names being mentioned above from the teams that have dropped out of Super Rugby?

by Maine man Sat 29 Jul 2017, 8:08 am

Now that JJ is back at Munster what's the chance of keatley moving north? He might not be everyone's cup of tea but right now any cup of tea will do.

by Kingshu Sat 29 Jul 2017, 12:18 pm

clivemcl wrote:P.S. just trying to catch up - are the super rugby names being mentioned above from the teams that have dropped out of Super Rugby?

3 super rugby sides are being cut, the two SA ones are joining the Pro 12, the one Australian one, does not have a back up plan, and will be fighting it, but its most likely to be Western Force or Rebels. Thats why one of the two players mentioned will become free, the AUS players will mostly be picked up by the 4 remaining teams, but both these players are non Australian fly halves, so prob won't be picked up and not command a high price.

I can't see Ian Keatly moving, but wouldn't be a bad move for him career wise, and for Ireland.

by demosthenes Sat 29 Jul 2017, 12:31 pm

clivemcl wrote:
Rory_Gallagher wrote:
clivemcl wrote:Busy day, but just to clarify I'm not a fan of the 'innocent till proven guilty line'. I think it's a sentiment that many think is right and proper but I just don't see the need to give them the 'innocent' title when we just don't yet know. It's no t like I'm saying 'guilty until proven innocent'. I'm just saying my point of view whether you agree or disagree is 'maybe, let's see if there's evidence'.

It's not a line, it isn't a sentiment, it's the law of the land (thankfully). I still don't think you understand and should go and read/learn about it.

What is there to read/learn Rory. I can disagree with it from the get go. Its a statement. I can buy into it or not.
Can you tell me why the terminology for verdicts is 'guilty' or 'not guilty' rather than 'guilty' or 'innocent'? It's because everyone knows a lack of evidence does not equal innocence. It could mean failure to convict.
To be guilty or innocent is a binary factual state. One or the other. That's my point, neither can be 'presumed'. It either is or it is not. Evidence is needed before we know.
You can't take a statement and throw it at people and expect it to simply be swallowed.
OJ Simpson was found 'not guilty' - so you think everybody suddenly said 'oh, OK then, I guess he's innocent after all!'. A lot would say at worst he's a guilty man who got lucky in terms of evidence delivery etc, and at best they would say 'I'm still not convinced, I just can't prove it'.

The statement exists as a counter to imprisonment without trial. I get why it exists. The burden is on the victim to prove the allegations. I get that. But the statement declares as fact something we don't know.

Innocent = Proof he did not
Not Guilty = We can't prove he did
Allegation = We don't know - let's try to find out

Rightly or wrongly, the gap between an allegation and a trial does not equate to innocence in the minds of observers. You can say 'innocent till proven guilty line' till you are blue in the face, it doesn't mean somebody IS.
Take an allegation of bad person/underage abuse. In the lead up to a trial do you say that person is innocent and allow him to continue spending time with children?

Point is, I get what the law of the land is trying to say, I just disagree with it's use of the word 'innocent' - that is something that cannot be known unless there is evidence. However, where the law is correct is that innocence does not have to be proven.

In Scotland there is the third verdict - not proven. It's exactly what it says, the prosecution has not proven it's case.

by Pete330v2 Sat 29 Jul 2017, 1:01 pm

Maine man wrote:Now that JJ is back at Munster what's the chance of keatley moving north? He might not be everyone's cup of tea but right now any cup of tea will do.

To be honest I'd prefer to make us of our academy guys that take Keatley.

by formerly known as Sam Sat 29 Jul 2017, 1:09 pm

Kingshu wrote:Anyway back to rugby, has anyone seen Peter Grant or Jackson Garden-Bachop, or think they are our most likely options?

JGB might be retained in Aus as he seems a bright prospect. In a couple of years he'd he qualified. Ben Volavola is at the Rebels he cold be available with Grant. Either could do a job in the short term. Would Leinster loan Carbery for a season?

by **Rugby Fan** Sat 29 Jul 2017, 1:29 pm

clivemcl wrote:Point is, I get what the law of the land is trying to say, I just disagree with it's use of the word 'innocent' - that is something that cannot be known unless there is evidence. However, where the law is correct is that innocence does not have to be proven.

As you say, under English law, you don't get found innocent. The verdict is either guilty or not guilty. However, if you are not guilty of a crime, then you are innocent of the crime. You may not care for the implication of the words, but that's the law. You shouldn't confuse the precise legal meaning of such terms with the way you might use them in other spheres of life.

by The Great Aukster Mon 31 Jul 2017, 1:56 pm

In cases such as this anonymity should be accorded to accused as well as accuser - how on earth can any Juror be chosen in NI who hasn't already heard of this case and made up their minds?

Presumably Jackson and Olding will continue training with the squad to maintain their fitness at least until the verdict?

Still can't believe how stupid Nucifora was/is and by association those who continue to employ him.

by marty2086 Mon 31 Jul 2017, 2:08 pm

Two Ulster rugby players who were questioned by police investigating alleged sex offences are suing over media coverage of the case.

Reporting restrictions which had prevented the players being named in the privacy lawsuit have been lifted.

Ireland international Paddy Jackson and club teammate Stuart Olding were arrested and released in June 2016.

Mr Jackson, 25, and Mr Olding, 24, deny any wrongdoing and have not been charged with any offence.

Lawyers for the pair also stress their complete co-operation with the police investigation.

Writs seeking damages for misuse of private information were issued against the BBC after details of their questioning were broadcast and published by the BBC and other media last autumn.

Their legal teams contend they were not given sufficient notice for a right of reply before the story appeared.

They claim it was a private matter and raise issues about how the information was obtained.

Disproportionate step

With no date set for the hearing of the civil action over privacy, the players also sought an injunction to stop further press reporting of the case.

A High Court judge refused their application earlier this year, citing the widespread coverage by other media outlets following the initial article.

However, she imposed tight reporting restrictions to stop either star being identified in the litigation.

Her anonymity order was aimed at ensuring no risk of prejudice to the ongoing police investigation.

Appealing that decision, the BBC argued that it had been a disproportionate step.

Counsel for the broadcaster emphasised both the public interest in reporting the case and the principle of open justice.

Following confirmation that the players were no longer seeking to maintain anonymity, the Court of Appeal ruled that the restrictions should be lifted.

Lord Chief Justice Sir Declan Morgan said: "In our view there's nothing to indicate there was a substantial barrier which ought to have interfered with the right of the press to publish the judgment that was given.

"We are satisfied that we should allow the appeal in relation to that matter and discharge the orders made."

by marty2086 Tue 01 Aug 2017, 10:02 am

by Pete330v2 Tue 01 Aug 2017, 11:13 am

I don't like the whole conference idea and ultimately I think it will eventually fail and revert to a proper league.
That being said we're stuck with it now and it is what it is for everyone.

by Sponsored content